[THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
- From: "Magnus" <magnus@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:25:23 -0400
sorry I sent it out before I finished my thought on it
Tech support and userr training Due to the nature of most open source
applications the documentation is awesome and very easy to read(it has to be
) so if the person can read they should be able to use it and / or
troubleshoot it to a certain extent(depending on their tech ability) there
are also alot of very very useful newsgroups that help.
I am not advocating Linux or Microsoft or any other OS or application. I
believe that if I buy something I shouldhave the ability to fix it or give
it a tuneup every once in a while and not have to depend on programmers that
sometime have no clue.
Like I stated before it is like haveing a car and not being able to change
the oil yourself or rotate the tires but rather you have to take it to GM to
have them do it and charge you alot of money for it
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Bruce Jarrett-Norton
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
But what about the overhead that small companies / business would have to
spend for either one of the accounting employees to learn / use Linux or for
them to hire an IT person who knows Linux? Most people know some Windows
basics already and know how most office programs work. This is not M$ being
the dominator and forcing it down peoples throat but rather they have been
around a relatively long time and are a known name. When you buy a M$
product yes some of your proceeds go into Marketing to get their name out.
What other than word of mouth between IT people and news coverage is the
Marketing of generic Linux?
Also, I have not worked in Linux mind you but truly how hard is it to fix
those bugs and to get a program that you want to use working on Linux?
Even though they might cost less or be free as far as the software goes what
is the overhead on the Technical support and the user training side? I do
not know nor do I claim to be an expert in either M$ or Linux but just
looking at the total picture this is what I see. I have been this
discussion for years and as I stated in my first post each side will defend
their side until "death".
Bruce Jarrett-Norton
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:51 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
The bugzilla report that you refer to is the Red Hat 9 which was publicly
release about a month or so ago. They show bug fixes from alpha code to
post release unlike other OS manaufactures do.
Also if you look to see who is actually fixing most of these bugs pre public
release you will notice that they have public help with it due to it beig
open source, which in turn keeps the product devlopement overhead
significantly lower which they pass on to the customer who buys it.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Sjolund, Dag
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
Keeping services available are generally more likely to be design and "best
practices" issues, not platform or application issues.
Make sure you don't ignore the extensive bug list your "stable" linux
installations may carry, though. Just because you may not know about them
doesn't mean they are not there. Here is an example of what you may see
from Redhat (may wrap).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux&data
sets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3
A>
&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIR
MED%3A
...at least that is down from ~38000 or so bugs documented through January
2003...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux&data
sets=CLOSED%3A> &datasets=CLOSED%3A
Happy computing!
Dag
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:10 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
They do hack linux in order to find its flaws before it is a production
release or RTM which microsoft doesnot that is the whole problem they do not
do enough testing which makes there OS and server applications less stable.
Some might say they do it for monetary reasons and that is understandable
but if they were open source they would have alot more people testing and
fixing there code for a far less monetary expense
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Bruce Jarrett-Norton
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:57 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
But look at who is using and trying to "break" the systems. Why would
hackers try to hack Linux and find its flaws? I mean it is the same as
saying that GroupWise is more Secure than Exchange. Exchange is more widely
used that GW and thus has a larger % of people trying to break it. GW and
Lotus Notes both work on MS Windows platforms. Why are these left out of
the argument that Linux is better? No matter how you look at it there is
not and will not be, as far as I can see, a good apples to apples comparison
for Linux v. MS v. Novell. This is just the nature of the beast and each
side will defend their side to the "death".
Bruce Jarrett-Norton
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
In my own experience with MS exchange and a Linux Open Source Email server
(that has the same functionality as exchange ) I have had 458 days of
uptime with the Linux version with no issues, bugs, security flaws(exploits,
holes...etc) as with the exchange server I am patching it every 2 to 4 weeks
and their are more security issues with exchange (Exchange 2000 with sp2
installed their are at least 20 security exploits and bugs with it right now
according to CERT and SANS)
That is why I stated that Linux is more stable. Although the hard data is
from our own deployment of both
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Lucas Boyken
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:25 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
The comment you made about Linux being more stable than Windows is
subjective. Unless hard data is available, an apples to apples comparison,
I cannot hold this statement to be either true or false. Windows has a
larger market share and is used for more applications at this point in time
than Linux. Open source, I will conceed, is a great way to work as a
community to solve problems. However, the old adage that too many cooks in
a kitchen only spoils the reciepe might apply in this case. Of course you
are bound to see some changes in how the code works, what it can do, etc.
However, with open source does come problems that you don't have in a closed
environment that Microsoft enjoys. We must remain objective, that is all
that I am stressing. When sweeping comments charge that one is better than
the other without any hard data, that is when we get into battles of opinion
instead of battles of fact.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:21 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Just food for thought
If Microsoft went to Open source we would have alot less problems, That is
why Linux is alot more stable than Windows would be. Also the fact that 3rd
party software vendors do not adhere to OS programming standards doesnt
suprise me when 30 to 45% of the time Microsoft's own programmers do not
adhere to those standards.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Lucas Boyken
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:50 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Neil,
After a while, you will see that I enjoy the discussion more so than the
actual position that I take in that discussion. I hope this leaves no hard
feelings between us. At the end of the day, I like learning about what
makes people tick, why they choose the positions they take, etc.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Braebaum, Neil [mailto:Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:45 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
You do realise the irony of your perspective, now, is almost a U-turn from
the one you were arguing against me, regarding Microsoft and their software
quality-control? ;-)
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucas Boyken [mailto:lboyken@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 July 2003 16:35
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Importance: High
Slow down. SP4, and a majority of the service packs released, work fine
with Microsoft products. Simply because you have chosen a third party piece
of software, you cannot blame Microsoft for all the adverse reactions that
it has to new updates. Microsoft can only control the code that they put
into their products. They cannot control, to a large degree, the code that
third party vendors put into their products. We have had this discussion
before on this board, and it just dawned on me why I have suffered so few
errors with service packs compared to many of the responses I have recieved.
Could it be, and this is just a suggestion, but could it be because a
majority of you are using Citrix that this is the cause of many of your
headaches and not Microsoft. Let me make a point, Microsoft develops and
manufactures software, and this software is the only code that they have
direct control over. If a third party vendor/manufacturer decides to code a
program and doesn't follow the guidelines set out in the OS's whitepapers,
etc. any errors or problems should not automatically be assigned to
Microsoft. We must look at the total picture and realize that there is a
lot in play here. Very possibly it could be that Citrix has not be coding
correctly or to the standards that Microsoft has put out.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Murphy [mailto:brian_murphy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:10 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Importance: High
Gee. Sounds exactly like my issue a few posts back....
"Post SP4 Issue - Desktop Login"
How hard is it to create a Service Pack that doesn't screw everything up?
I could understand the first, 2nd, and maybe the 3rd SP but come on guys.
This is the 4th SP.
Luckily, I have not deployed this to any production systems yet but this is
still ridiculous.
Frank,
Just curious. What type of Hardware was this deployed on and were any other
updates applied other than the Service Pack during the same time frame?
Thanks.
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and are intended for
the above named recipient only. If this has come to you in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your
system. You must take no action based on this, nor must you copy or
disclose it or any part of its contents to any person or organisation.
Statements and opinions contained in this email may not necessarily
represent those of Littlewoods. Please note that email communications
may be monitored.
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its subsidiaries
is 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152
***********************************************************************
Other related posts:
